Arch definition of simplicity?

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:07:20 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez, Jr." <herminio.hernandezjr at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:47 AM Steve Litt <slitt at troubleshooters.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:15:14 -0700
> > Stephen Partington <cryptworks at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > From https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Linux
> > >
> > > "Arch Linux defines simplicity as *without unnecessary additions
> > > or modifications*.  
> >
> > Given such a definition, it would be interesting to hear Arch's
> > explanation of substituting the million LOC systemd for the very
> > skinny sysvinit, runit, s6, busybox or OpenRC init systems.
> >
> > SteveT


> Here is a good thread from the arch forums
> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530

The preceding link shows developer tomegun's enumeration of his
perception of systemd benefits, but a search on the string "simpl" on
his post shows up twice,  both of which show up as the adjective
"simply" rather than any reference to simple or simplicity.

Perhaps the list of perceived advantages were intended as a reason to
abandon simplicity. An examination of the truth and timeliness of the
list as such a reason deserves its own thread.

Secondly, it was written in August 2012, when, according to
https://phoronix.com/misc/systemd-2017/lines.html , systemd had 200,000
lines of code, rather than its current 7 figure amount. And in 2012,
the s6 init system wasn't widely distributed, and the runit init
system, which was very capable at the time, for some reason had very
little mindshare.

SteveT